Coming forward now actually could be the difference
between criminal penalties and simply paying interest.
Not exact matches
Whenever,
between the time of the final judgment in a
criminal case and the time the sentence is fully served, a law is enacted that stipulates a lighter
penalty, the original sentencing shall be reduced to the special maximum of the new sentencing if the previous one exceeded that special maximum.
For greater detail as to how this «trial
penalty» system works, see: (1) «The Triumph of Plea Bargaining,» (2011), 85
Criminal Reports (6th) 29; and, (2) «Plea Bargaining Is Sentencing,» (2009) 14 Canadian
Criminal Law Review 55, particularly this exchange of comments
between a Superior Court Justice and the Crown, which clearly shows the presumptive power given the Crown's sentencing recommendations (at p. 59):
Though there is a recognized difference
between the application of some Charter rights in the regulatory as opposed to
criminal context, many regulatory statutes contain provisions which bear the hallmarks of
criminal legislation — namely prohibitions coupled with
penalties, which can include incarceration.
As a consequence of these statements, even though the Member States have «freedom to choose the applicable
penalties»
between administrative and
criminal penalties, the last ones may be necessary to «combat serious cases of VAT evasion in an effective and dissuasive manner» (§ 39).
The reason links to my work seeking cert in US v. Faulks (details here) and my concern with huge «trial
penalties» (details here), and take me back to my long - ago insights about what Blakely is really about: a battle
between an adversarial and inquisitorial model of
criminal justice.
The law has long been a target of
criminal justice reformers, who have argued that the severe, mandatory minimum
penalties contemplated by Tennessee's School Zone law fail to make appropriate distinctions
between people who sell drugs to children and people who don't...